IOM COMPENSATION SCHEME?
This is just a thought ... and probably only of interest to those with less that 50K, but I've read on the forum and elsewhere that the Isle of Man compensation scheme doesn't have any money in the pot and therefore it could be any number of years before depositors receive their compensation, (following liquidation).
Am I being riduculous? Before I placed my money in Kaupthing, I was careful to check that the bank had the backing of a compensation scheme. When I read that it did, I understood that this meant that if things went pear-shaped there was a safety net I could rely on. This was based on the 'fact' that there was definitely a compensation scheme.
Now, it seems that the 'compensation scheme' doesn't actually have any money to pay out. In that case, it seems to me that in effect there is no compensation scheme. Surely in order to claim that you have a compensation scheme, it is a prerequisite that you are able to compensate people! If this is not actually the case, then is it not wrong, misleading and possibly fraudulent to claim that there is a compensation scheme.
I seem to have used 'compensation scheme' loads of times, but there doesn't seem to be any way round it.
IOM Compensation Scheme
Why all these negative comments on the IOM compensation scheme.
We, and I suspect also the IOM, don't yet know what or if compensation scheme will have to pay out.
When they know what their liabilities are then they will work out how it will be funded.
I believe it is in the IOM's interest to pay us our (up to) 50k within a reasonable timeframe, as failure to do so would have a major effect on the credibility of the IOM as an offshore finance centre.
As to the complaints on it being only a 50k payout. Infact this is the same as the current UK scheme. The reason the UK government has made a 1 off agreement to cover all the retail deposits in Icesave and KSF(UK) was both political and to stop a run on the vulnerable British banks.
Do not expect the UK to cover all deposits in any future collapse.
So until I hear how much of, and when, I will get my money back, I will allow the liquidator to do his job and try and sort this mess out, which incidentally I blame wholly on the rash comments and actions of the UK government.
Should the IOM government have to pay out on the compensation scheme and they let me down by not paying out on a timely basis, then that is the time when my voice will be heard.
DCS
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the DCS will be activated so don't hold your breath.
CILoser liquidator
" I will allow the liquidator to do his job "
A liquidator has not yet been appointed.
@CIloser: let's think! DCS...
When you 'signed up' the protection offered was for 75% of 20K ie 15K.
You were aware of that were you not? Because in your posting you seen to think that 50K was protected.
To be frank you seem to be supremely badly informed. You speak with apparent authority over the actions of HMG(UK) re their protection of depositors. Given that you didn't even understand the details of the non-effective DCS of the IoM where you placed your deposit/bond? I find that incredible.
Have you heard of "systemic risk". Sorry to be sarcastic, but your high horse tone irritates me. How much do you have at stake? Were you actually aware of any detail?
In a paragraph I will try and explain why the UK government ponied up to protect in full depositors. You may like to note that the US still only protects to 250K (OH HOW I WISH I WAS STATESIDE).The UK ponied up because the whole banking system was at risk. That is the whole system would be liable to crash. The risk was a series of bank runs. Everybody, every depositor would take a hit. Do you read the papers?
Oh, you will be irritated, and finally speak out, if the the IOMG don't hold to the politically opportune raising of the depositor guarantee they put in place at the exact time that kaupthing was killed by the mix of incompetence between all the financial regulators and in particular between the irresponsibilty of Iceland/HMG/FSA/FSC and IoMG. Well I'm really impressed. Do you have a television station?
Tell me, which planet are you from? Has the IoMG given you a retainer?
Now I'll soften up.
I don't understand your posting. The details are so confused I think you are confused.
The liquidator isn't doing his job because he has been prevented from doing so by IoMG.
I don't know how to go on here. I would like to respond to some of your points but you have to give me a steer.
I'm afraid you are going to have to put in some more effort to understand the position of some of your other fellow depositors, notwithstanding an effort to understand your own historical position.
I'm sorry if that seemed hard but really you do you seem disconnected.
bobwin / steenjp / _tao.
bobwin / steenjp / _tao.
why are you guy's pointing out errors on a post that's 4 months old - I suspect by now the original writer has as along with the rest of the DAG learned a lot more since November 18th 2008.
Just an observation.
Out dated posts
Because it is still a current forum and comes up in my unread
:-) OK bobwin
:-) OK bobwin
It just get's confusing,
It is one of the problems with the site layout, somewhere / somehow we have to have a method of archiving some of these - providing any questions and views have been dealt with to the satisfaction of all, it just appears to be of little point racking over dead coals time after time.
Just my thoughts & no I don't have the 'puter skills to do it and I suspect ng has much more important things to do -
BCCI Crash: IOM paid out, no problem
I was involved, unfortunately, in the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce (I don't remember the exact name of the bank) back in the 80s. The IOM compensation scheme kicked in quickly, and I got my money back (well, 75% of it) without any problem. In fact, I received it at about the same time that I actually found out that the bank had closed: no web in those days.
I think that the IOM are operating in good faith, and will have our money to us as soon as is practically possible. I myself was banking there under the impression that only 75% of 20,000 was covered. So the silver lining is that getting 100% of up to 50,000 is a bit of a windfall, no matter how long it takes. (Gotta look on the bright side).
Tomigaya
So desu yo! I was so fed up: only 75% of 15k. Then, magic, the IoM went generous and decided to compensate up to 50k, 100%! Wheee. I'm still wondering why they did it, though, because they seem to be reluctant to activate it.... Sad.
Won't this ruin IOM's banking reputation?
I don't know if this has been mentioned already (just read the other comments below and couldn't see anything), and apologies to those savers with over £50k, BUT I put money into Kaupthing Edge knowing that the compensation scheme was 75% of the first £20K. Then around the 8th October, when it all exploded, the IOM said they were raising the compensation scheme to £50k.
So why did they do this of there was no money in the pot in the first place? How can they publicise this if it's not worth the paper it's written on?
No depositors will ever trust them again. We live abroad (so we were unable to open accounts in UK) and we didn't use any banks in Jersey because there is no compensation scheme - but apparently the one in IOM is not able to fulfill it's promise, so we might as well have gone anywhere - compensation scheme or no compensation sheme.
Doesn't the IOM receive a lot of it's income from it's financial sector? Won't this debarcle harm it's international reputation to attract big savers? If they make no effort to help the big depositors of KSF, other big depositors in other banks will see what they're dealing with in IOM and move elsewhere. Or are the choices for us Uk residents living abroad very limited?
Or is the banking world very fickle and peolpe don't remember these things...........
I Know I will - and I'm sure many people on this website will!
what a mess
Your post does not do justice to the efforts the IOM Gov are making. They will put up to £150 million into the pot as they have already stated and that is half the entire Government liquid reserves, to pay out depositors up to £50K
Yes the finance sector is our life blood and without it the IOM dies like Iceland
Rest assured we do have a workable compensation scheme and if you invested less than £50K you will get your cash back
Who invested
Sorry to be picky but I think it is important to remember that we deposited not invested in this bank. We were not shareholders.
BC
Sorry but a deposit in a bank is an investment in my eyes
Ramsey Resident
You are wrong -do you work for John Aspen?
@Ramsey resident: Ask your neighbours....
Since when did you think in this manner?
How do you sleep at night? isn't your mattress at all lumpy?
In that case all savings
In that case all savings accounts should come with a warning that the value of your deposit can go down as well as up!
Yes, that's about it. The
Yes, that's about it. The IOM Lifeboat is actually a kit of parts stuffed in a cupboard, and the scheme now requires someone to get the bits out, find the assembly instructions, search for Part 34B which seems to be missing, drag it all onto the upper deck, find someone who understands the instructions, "has anyone got a No. 2 Philips screwdriver?", assemble the thing, and launch it ... one day, eventually.
Misrepresentation? Possibly not, as I suspect there's some small print somewhere explaining how it would work. But as a "front page" claim for a compensation scheme, I personally now place it in the same bin as "parental guarantee".
In essence, I shall NEVER trust a Bank implicitly again.
Iceland/IMF/EU - IOM/EU...watch this space....
After the Iceland/IMF/EU/ thawing, I would not be surprised to hear in the next week or so an announcement that the EU has promised to IOM some 'development aid': and, as a quid pro quo, IOM agrees to participate in a widening of the EUSTD net to include trusts and various lumped-together bonds and 'wrappers' etc. We would get our money back as a result of the 'development aid'. A nice finale for everyone.
IOM DCS QUESTIONS
I'm not totally clear on the workings of the scheme if it is triggered e.g. does it pay depositors out pro rata according to the amount of their deposit or does everyone receive up to 50K per account holder? Pro rata is of course the fairest method otherwise those with up to 50K would receive a 100% recovery while those with over 50% would receive less than 100% For example, if I am owed 300K would the DCS pay me only 50K i.e a 16.7% recovery or....?
In my opinion with regards to
In my opinion with regards to the DCS the payout should work like this which are not accurate figures, just estimates for example sake:
8000 individual depositors
50,000 GBP each in deposit covered by scheme
400,000,000 GBP total coverage
150,000,000 IOM government payment into DCS
150/400 = 37.5% of 50,000 GBP payout per individual depositor
18,750 GBP payout per depositor from IOM government DCS
The above does not take into account any other funds that may be available to be paid out to the depositors.
liquidation
If the company is wound up on the 27th, the liquidator will be able to commence distribution of the money he has recovered. Whether this will be on a penny in the pound basis (eg, we all get back, say, 60% of our deposits) or whether the IoM has first claim (which it will use to try to give all depositors GBP50,000) is unclear to me.
On top of the liquidator's recovery, the IoM is offering GBP150m to cover all depositors up to GBP50,000. If this still falls short, the Depositor's Compensation Scheme will start up.
Nevertheless, I remain optimistic that a solution will be found. The IMF route is one; compensation from the UK government (thanks to our efforts) is another - so be hopeful.
10,000 customers
Today I received a statement of my account from the liquidator provisionally. Enclosed is a letter from Mike Simpson (the lp) in which he states:
"On appointment the company had 10,000 customers...."
We are led to believe that
We are led to believe that there are not 8000 individual investors, just 8000 accounts. I have 2, maybe 3 depending on PWC, this changes all the figuress
You aren't taking in to account those with much less than 50K in the pot.
It is just not worthwhile playing with these numbers until the true facts ar known.
Well said captain.All these
Well said captain.All these number games are just that!
Play with the numbers, when we have some real factual figures.
other than the 150 million forget it
There are 33 banks that would contribute to the "scheme" and by one definition of the term, it is very appropriate ie. "scheme: a statement that evades the question by cleverness or trickery"
According to the Financial Services Act 2008 - Compensation of Depositiors Regulations 2008 the maximum in any one year that the participating banks may pay in is only 350,000 GBP per bank. So if you multipy 33 times that amount the grand total is only 16.5 million GBP that could come from the scheme annually.
This is one reason in my opinion it is important that the 150 million GBP the IOM government has committed to the scheme not be allowed to be taken off the table, unless a guaranteed better option is made available by the 27th of the month.
I think most if not all of us were conned originally about this Depositor Compensation Scheme and we should be very aware of any maneuver to scam us again by withdrawing the 150 million that has been earmarked. Without it, many of the depositors who had little savings (the under 50k group) may only see a small portion of their funds returned even though they should have been fully covered.
IOM compensation
Just for the record; If the scheme is triggered then it is funded by contributions from other IOM banks which are part of the scheme.In this case however the IOM govt has pledged £150M of (IOM)taxpayers money to the scheme (in addition to the banks' contributions) to enable it to pay out more quickly.
IOM COMPENSATION
According to the latest DCS regulations the IoM contribution of 150m to the DCS fund only covers payments that EXCEED the first 20k compensation, to a maximum of 50k for individual depositors.
It is unclear if this 20k includes the pro-rata cash distribution to depositors recovered by the liquidator. If it does, and the liquidator recovers at least 40% of depositors funds, individuals should not have to wait for member banks to contribute to the DCS because the 50k compensation would consist of cash recovered (20k) and the contribution from the IoM fund (30k). It is more likely that the cash recovered by the liquidator would first be distributed amongst all the depositors on a pro-rata basis (deposits of 100k would therefore receive 40k for a 40% recovery) and only if this distribution is less than 50k, in the case of an individual deposit of 50k or more, would the DCS come into play for such a depositor. Up to the first 20k of this amount would then be sourced from the contribution of the DCS member banks (which may take several years) and the balance from the IoM's 150m contribution (which presumably will be paid out much sooner).
DCS scheme
Can you say where you got the information : "IoM contribution of 150m to the DCS fund only covers payments that EXCEED the first 20k compensation " and "Up to the first 20k of this amount would then be sourced from the contribution of the DCS member banks (which may take several years)? , since this does not agree with my understanding and I have not read this on the FSC site or anywhere else.
Depositors Compensation Scheme
The latest DCS regulations in pdf format are:
www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/PressReleases/compensationofdepositorsregulatio1...
The relevant paragraph is 12A (see below):
[Treasury funding
12A. (1) Where a default has occurred the Treasury shall pay to the Scheme Manager such
sum as appears to it to represent the total of the amount by which the compensation payable in
respect of each depositor exceeds £20,000.
Compensation scheme...of sorts
I know what you mean and I agree - it does sound daft to have an all-singing, all-dancing scheme that is actually empty!
Funnily enough I asked my IFA exactly how the scheme worked when my (God I wish I could turn back the clock) deposits were made. His answer was : -
"The Isle of Man has a Depositors' Compensation Scheme which provides protection to depositors in respect of sterling and foreign currency deposits made with Isle of Man banks which are licensed under the Banking Act. Compensation for depositors arises when a banking institution is deemed to be in default under the Scheme which, in essence, occurs when that banking institution becomes insolvent.
The amount of the compensation payable to each depositor is an amount equal to 75% of the eligible protected deposit liability, subject to a maximum compensation payment to any one depositor of £15,000.
The Commission currently acts as Scheme Manager in respect of the compensation scheme. There is no standing fund under the Scheme. A fund for the payment of compensation to depositors is created when the need arises - by virtue of the default of a banking institution. Each such fund is financed by way of contributions which all banking institutions are liable to make. Isle of Man banking offices which are not participants in the Scheme must say so in all advertisements and any other material made available to depositors or potential depositors to avoid misrepresentation and misunderstanding."
The only conclusion I can draw is that the IOM wasn't expecting any catastrophe on the scale of this one to actually arise. In some ways it's a bit like the Irish Govt guaranteeing ALL deposits in Irish Banks. This was a smart move and money flooded in presumably keeping the Banks buoyant. However, a quick look through the Economist shows you that the amount held in Irish Banks is over twice the country's GDP so in reality everyone hopes and prays that the need to draw on that guarantee never arises.
IOM DC Scheme
As I understand it, if KSFIoM is wound up, Douglas will borrow £150m to cover the first £50,000 per depositor and seek to recover the remainder from KSF funds under administration in Britain, Reykjavik and/or HMG. Levy subscriptions from IoM bank subsidiaries have been raised, but the £50,000 compensation per depoitor ceiling will be lowered to £20,000 in Autumn, 2009.
IOM DC Scheme
My understanding is that:
IOM Government has cash reserves of more than £150m and it is from this that the £150m would be drawn. They have net savings rather than borrowings, as they have to budget for a surplus each year.
This, plus contributions from banks would be used to pay out the DCS (upto £50,000 for a sole personal depositor)
The DCS will take over the claim against the bank for the monies paid out, and will receive the liquidators payments up to this figure - these are paid out pro rata to creditors.
The
The Provisional Liquidator is seeking to reclaim assets and these will be used to make payouts. It is KSF IOM which has claims, against Kaupthing hf (largely for the parental guarantee*), but the main claim is against KSF (UK) and possibly against HMG if they have done anything actionable.
Because KSF IOM has over 12% available bank balances this could probably be used to make a payment to creditors at about the same time as the DCS and so would also help reduce the funding strain on the DCS.
Payouts would take some time, as every account holder has to "prove" their claim and the Liquidator would have to balance everything up before the DCS could begin to get paperwork signed up.
* Obviously when KSF (UK) were prevented by HMG Court action from meeting payments this came into play and remains valid today, but if KSF (UK) actually repaid all the outstanding amounts this would lapse.
Just my opinion.
12% plus £150m may = full payout under the DSC?
Not sure if my numbers are right, however, I suspect the IOM's £150m may have been decided upon to provide full payment under the DCS. With deposits of £800m and they have in their possession 12% then we're talking about £100m approx. Add the IOM's £150m and there is an immediate fund of £250m available.
The numbers I have seen for the number of depositers is 8,000. We have to speculate at what percentage are individual depositors versus corporate. Let's take a (probable) conservative 2/3rds. That makes around 5,300 private depositors.
Not all had a full £50K in their accounts. Let's say that 1/3rd had an average of only £35K. Then we can approximate the payout required:
1,750 @ £35K = £ 61.25m
3,550 @ £50K = £177.50m
Total is then £239m.
That means the IOM government may be attempting to acheive a worse case scenario of covering all depositors up to £50K under the scheme. It doesn't help the folk with more than £50K but maybe the reasoning behind the amount of £150m they have quoted.
Of course, my numbers may be a crock of rubbish... all just guesswork...
12% plus £150m may = full payout under the DSC?
There were 4 insurers with around £20M which only count as 4 corporate depositors. This skews the figures.
You might be right.
I am not sure if the £150M the IoMG pledged is as a result of lobbying by the banks, or whether it is as a result of analytical work on the deposit base makeup.
Also the DCS scheme can borrow money so maybe there are some possibility there of accelerating the payout time.
If the DCS is triggered the IOMG will want the payout to be as quick as possible.
Parental Guarantee
Does anyone know when the parental guarantee first appeared. While filing Mike Simpson's letter received today I found an undated leaflet from KS&F IOM LTD. It states - 'KS&F IOM is registered in the IOM and its principal place of business is the IOM.As the IOM is not part of the UK deposits made with KS&F IOM are not covered by the DPS under the UK Banking Act 1987.Deposits made with KS&F IOM are covered by the DCS contained in the IOM Banking Business Compensation of Depositors Regulations 1991.
Parental Guarantee
I don't know, but would be shocked if it did not come into being at the time of the takeover by Kaupthing (not that I think it is worth anything now, but it might have been).
Parental Guarantee
As I understand it, there was a term in the T&C's of Derbyshire Offshore which stated that if there was a change of control then, inter alia, a replacement guarantee would be put in place with the new ultimate parent.
It was probably in order to comply with these T&C's that the guarantee was implemented in November ( the acquistion of the Derbyshire Offshore business in November 2007)
Parental Guarantee -- Sounds Hollow Now, n'est pas?
All Derbyshire Offshore customers received a brochure in November 2007 in which the parental guarantee is mentioned thus;
"Kaupthing Bank hf, the Bank's ultimate parent. will provide a parental guarantee which replaces the parental guarantee from Derbyshire Building Society from the date of completiton, meaning that customers can continue to have peace of mind regarding their deposits".
And, for MD Aiden Dohery,
"(A)ll deposits, including those of Derbyshire Offshore clients following completiton, are also full guaranteed by Kaupthing Bank hf -- with the peace of mind that their savings are fully guaranteed".
Nuff said, Pinnocchio!.
Best Guarantee Statement
I thought the best words were on the letter from the Derbyshire on the 20th November which was signed by both Derbyshire and KSF (IOM) directors. It stated: "Kaupthing Bank hf have given an irrevocable and binding undertaking to ensure that, while Kaupthing Singer @ Friedlander (Isle of Man) Limited remains its subsidiary, it will at all times be able to discharge its financial obligations as they fall due."
I find it hard to accept that these words (and the ones quoted by VikingRaider) are not legally binding.
Best Guarantee Statement
It may be obvious, but I would suggest that K hf may now be slightly impecunious so its a case of even if it is binding, if hf haven't got the resources to pay then how much use is it.
I was involved with a case for a client of mine ( I am not a lawyer - I was a director of a client company) where there was a 'guarantee' between two companies in different countries and there was doubt as to what the word guarantee actually meant. The other party was in a German speaking country and they were saying that the word Guarantee can be translated to mean either what we would understand as a guarantee (i.e. a ancillary obligation) or a surety where the obligation is primary. The lawyers would have been happy to debate this point at great cost - luckily there was no need as in the end there was a 'commercial' compromise.
In either of these cases the guarantee may only be enforceable by the guarantee against the guarantor - It may not provide any recourse for anyone other then the Guaranntee (i.e. may not able to be relied upon in law by the depositor)
This is obviously a complex matter with issues such as conflict of laws potentially applying.
Best Guarantee Statement
Thanks for the reply manx-person. I think what annoys me most is that Iceland has nationalised or taken over Kaupthing and washed it's hands of the responsibilities that went with it. At the time KSF (IOM) went into administration Kaupthing hf was still the guarantor and as such the Icelandic government should honour that by whatever method it takes.
Out of curiosity I looked up in the Encarta the word guarantee and the definition item 3. read; "Law - Promise to be responsible for another: A formal promise by one person to take responsibility fro the debts or obligations of another person if that person fails to meet them". Item 4 read; " Law - some body receiving a formal assurance: A person or company given an assurance that somebodies debts or obligations will be dealt with."
The letters from the Derbyshire Offshore and KFS (IOM) were written in an English speaking country in English thus the the meaning of the words are of that language, no other.
As a depositor these statements from KFS (IOM) and Derbyshire Offshore was all we received and as such we accepted them and made our judgements to continues saving with KFS (IOM)). I also find it strange that the FSC seems reluctant to issue any information about this guarantee unless they themselves have something to hide, the words on our documents are clear. I also copied the words from an email to another depositor (on this site) written by an employee of KFS (IOM) where it stated "Not only are all deposits held with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander ("the Bank") in the Isle of Man covered by the Depositors Compensation Scheme contained in the Isle of Man Banking Business (Compensation of Depositors) Regulations 1991, they are also fully (100% of the deposit with no upper limit) guaranteed by Kaupthing Bank hf i.e. our parent."
If Iceland receives loans the IOM/UK governments should ensure that the honour their obligations here.
Best Guarantee Statement
I agree with what you are saying - but who knows what difficulty there could be in compelling an Icelandic Company. I was just saying from my experience how these things have worked for me.
I think the FSC see its not their role to provide the guarantee. It was provided to them in the course of their functions as a regulator; lots of confidential information is supplied and there are provisions in the FSA2008 for them to keep such information confidential.
I am not saying this is right, I am just saying this is how they will see it, and this is how the law is
As to whether the Bank should provide it - I think they should, immediately.
My overall point is, I don't know how much use this will be.
The best solution is of course the guarantee will not be required because the obligations will be met in other ways.
I hope that this happens, as I am sure you do.
Be shocked then. The
Be shocked then. Kaupthing took over Singer and Friedander in July 2005. The bank was rebranded as KS&F in Jan 2007. The parental guarantee was not issued until September 2007.
Why? I asked the FSC several weeks ago and I have still not received an answer - my e-mail was ignored.
That should give you some idea of how hard the FSC are working to "protect depositors".
Parental guarantee - No shock!
Can I offer a simple solution.
When Kaupthing took over Singer & freidlander in 2005, S&F did not operate with a parental guarantee, so Kaupthing did not feel the need to put one in place, and the FSC did not see the need for one as there was not one before.
It is not unusual for some of the offshore subsidiaries to work without a parental guarantee, I think I saw someone post on this forum a few days ago that Lloyds offshore works without one.
However, with reference to your date of September 2007. Well KSF completed the purchase of Derbyshire offshore on 20th November 2007. However negotiations would most definitely be well advanced by September. As Derbyshire offshire depositors would have been covered by a parental guarantee if there was not another parental guarantee in place then depositors are worse off (as it turned out it made no difference), so it could have been a condition to the deal to put a guarantee in place.
No fact there, but probably just a common sense view.
I can't say the FSC come out of this mess in any other way then badly. But not point in going down blind alleys for no reason. If there is fault at the FSC and it needs to be proved in Court well, we'll all have plenty of time to do that. As I am sure you know legal action of this sort will take years, so why don't we wait until it is necessary before we start going of with conspiracy theories about parental guarantees etc etc
Why don't we all calm down and wait until the 27th.
Blind alleys with no reason?
You really think the parental guarantee is a "blind alley" "with no reason"?
Is the FSC ordering KSFIOM to deposit £550m in KSFUK also a blind alley with no reason? Is the fact that FSC's deputy chairman is a director of KSFIOM also a blind alley with no reason? Is the fact that the FSC will not answer any questions which go to its competence as a regulator in this affair also a blind alley with no reason?
Is there a reason for postponing mentioning these questions until after the 27th November, other than another attempt to save the I0M's tarnished reputation at the expense of the depositors?
Blind alley with no reason?
In respect of the FSC Deputy Chairman being a director of KFSIOM, what is the issue with this?
It is permitted by law.
The directorships have been and are disclosed at http://www.fsc.gov.im/about/conflicts/current_directorships.xml
There is a policy in place in respect of dealing with potential conflicts of interest http://www.fsc.gov.im/about/conflicts/commissioners_cod.xml
There was an independent review undertaken by HMG in 1998 of the ODT's known as the "Edwards Report"
One of the recommendations of the Edwards report was that members of the regulatory authorities should have current financial Services experience.
Blind alleys - Calm down
As I posted on another reply, calm down.
I don't think some of the things you mention are blind alleys. If I look back over my replys I never said they were. I just said I think the parental guarantee is a blind alley.
I fear you may be argueing with yourself.
The questions you have asked have been asked a thousand times. If you feel you have not got answers than litigate if that is what you want.
Only my opinion, but why not wait until after 27th November to litiagte. Its only a 10 day wait. It's going to take years to litigate. So if we had to litgate before we got a result we are talking about years. Can't see 10 days making a difference myself. But just my opinion.
no-one alleged a conspiracy
There's no conspiracy theory - I asked FSC a question and they failed to answer. I have asked the FSC several questions, and none of them have been answered. I have asked FSC to produce a copy of the PG, and they have refused. No conspiracy - just a failure to properly regulate and then a failure to answer the questions raised. You decide if that is consistent with working in the best interests of depositors.
No conspiracy theory, just relax
And I have asked many question of the FSC and of PWC to which I have still waiting for an answer.
I am sure amongst the many reason they have not answered is
1) there are getting hundreds if not thousands of questions each week and just do not have the time to answer all questions
2) the FSC have made it know they hold the parental guarantee is confidence and will not release it (so ask the question but they have already given the answer)
Do you think you are the only person to ask a question that hasn't been answered? Or do you think as soon as they see you name they will drop everything and reply?
As I say why don't we just wait until the 27th and see what happens.
If you want litigation we will have the rest of our lives to litigate (as that could be how long it takes). Lets give it another 10 days. Just a thought.
And I can't help thinking you are going to mightly disappointed when you see the parental guarantee at a guess it will be a very basic document, below is what the Nationwide International have on their website.
Nationwide Building Society, who have assets in excess of £179 billion guarantees to discharge the liabilities of its wholly owned subsidiary, in the very unlikely event that Nationwide International Ltd is unable to meet those liabilities from its own assets.
relax
I can't help thinking that you see yourself as an apologist for the Isle of Man government and its regulator, rather than as a member of the driving team of an "action" group. I emphasise the word "action", because all you are suggesting is inaction to the extent of not even pursuing unanswered questions.